Scott v. James

Background

Scott filed a petition for federal habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging his 2015 New York Supreme Court, Bronx County conviction for four counts of murder in the second degree and two counts of robbery in the first degree. He was proceeding without a lawyer. The respondent argued that some claims were unexhausted, some were not cognizable in federal habeas review, and the remaining claims did not violate clearly established federal law.

Scott asked the court to stay the federal case while he returned to state court to exhaust claims. The court previously denied that request without prejudice and directed him to address the respondent’s arguments. In this order, the court examined only the claims necessary to decide whether a stay was appropriate.

Prosecutorial-misconduct claim

Scott argued that the prosecutor deprived him of a fair trial by incorrectly telling the jury that defense counsel had conceded that Scott committed the robbery. He also challenged a related statement that Scott was guilty of the robbery and felony murder. Defense counsel did not object to the first statement and objected to the second.

The court determined that the claim was technically exhausted because the state appellate court addressed it, but that it was procedurally defaulted. Procedural default means that a federal court generally cannot review a claim because the state court rejected it based on an independent and adequate state procedural rule. The state appellate court had found the claim unpreserved, and the federal court concluded that New York’s contemporaneous-objection rule supplied such a procedural bar.

Scott did not show cause for the default and prejudice from it. He also did not meet the exception for a fundamental miscarriage of justice, which requires an extraordinary showing that a constitutional violation probably resulted in the conviction of someone actually innocent. The court therefore dismissed Scott’s prosecutorial-misconduct claim. The order did not grant federal habeas relief on the underlying claim.

Ineffective-assistance claim

Scott alternatively argued that his lawyer was ineffective for failing to object properly to the prosecutor’s summation. The court found this claim exhausted. It explained that Scott had raised the issue in his state appellate filings, including his application for review by New York’s highest court, and that the state appellate court had considered and rejected the ineffective-assistance claim related to preservation.

The court did not decide the merits of the ineffective-assistance claim in this order. It addressed the claim only as necessary to determine the status of the petition and the request for a stay.

Excessive-sentence claim

Scott argued in state court that his aggregate sentence of 50 years to life was harsh and excessive. The court found that he presented this argument under New York law, asking the state appellate court to reduce the sentence in the interest of justice, rather than presenting it as a violation of the United States Constitution.

The court concluded that Scott had not exhausted the federal constitutional version of this claim. A state prisoner generally must present the federal nature of a claim to the state courts before seeking federal habeas review. The court found that Scott’s references to state cases and to a quotation concerning youth did not alert the state courts to a federal constitutional sentencing claim.

Stay and disposition

A stay and abeyance can allow a federal habeas case to pause while the petitioner exhausts state remedies. The court found no indication that Scott had intentionally delayed the litigation, but he had not shown good cause for failing to exhaust the excessive-sentence claim. The court therefore denied his motion to stay the habeas petition in abeyance.

The court ordered Scott to submit a letter within 30 days choosing between returning to state court to exhaust the sentencing claim or amending the petition to present only exhausted claims. If he chose to return to state court, the court stated that it would dismiss the petition without prejudice. If he amended the petition to remove the unexhausted claim, the court stated that it would review the exhausted claims and Scott could pursue the unexhausted claim separately.

The court declined to issue a certificate of appealability for the dismissed claim because Scott had not made a substantial showing that a constitutional right was denied. Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. also certified that any appeal from the decision would not be taken in good faith.